On Mar 22, 2006, at 10:06 PM, Hal Fulton wrote:
>> Hm, at least that makes sense. However, it's hard for me to think
>> of === as having direction (it doesn't look like it has
>> direction, and therefore it can be difficult to remember which
>> direction it's supposed to go sometimes).
>
> I drew some (a little) criticism for spending four pages
> in _The Ruby Way_ covering the case statement.
>
> I think it's powerful, and I think it's done the Right Way,
> and shouldn't be changed.
>
> But I also think there are some non-obvious quirks (such as
> you describe).
>
If four pages is what it takes.... I haven't read the Ruby Way yet
(maybe if I had I wouldn't have been confused), but at the moment I
wish that either Why's PG or the Pickaxe covered === a bit better. I
also wish that it looked asymmetrical (maybe ==~ instead of ==,
though that would invite people to think of it in relation to =~,
which probably wouldn't be good either). Anyway, I think I'll be
able to keep its role straight in my head.
Thanks for the help, guys.
Tim